9/11: Intercepted

What happened on the morning of September 11, 2001? Why were US defenses ineffective? Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyze NORAD response, Audio recordings as well as Radar data provided by government agencies.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. They're are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001.

Their main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. They do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, they are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts - since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today - and the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.

142 Comments / User Reviews

I have a few comments. And they are bullsh*t. Whoever made this "documentary" is part of the "conspiracy" behind the 9-11 attacks. So who are the "perps"? Answer: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, and a few other civilians in the Bush Jr. administration, plus some other Deep-State operators. But the chief operators were the Mossad.

This is a sloppy boring incoherent mess of a documentary. Very, very poorly done. I too have some questions about the official 9/11 story and one of the biggest questions is how our advanced domestic air defense systems could have failed not once, but 3 times that day. We have had state of the art air defense detection and response systems in this country since WWII and these were broadly enhanced during the cold war. How could they have failed?

However if you are looking for answers to this question, you wont find them in this very poorly made sloppily put together excuse for a documentary. I believe a high school mass media student could have written and edited a better documentary than this. While the narrator has good speaking voice, even he seems confused as to where he is supposed to use dramatic emphasis and which sentences and phrases he should be emphasizing. Very poorly written and poorly worded throughout. Whoever wrote this should have used their thesaurus.

They display color coded radar maps that look like an 80's video game and poorly contextualize them. They never explain how or why these graphics are significant or what they are supposed mean, and these images make up the bulk of the 40 minute "documentary." Are these images supposed to mean something? As a viewer I failed to ascertain any meaningful information from this. A little context would have been helpful.

If there is a consortium of pilots who are advocating for "9/11 truth" that supposedly made or sponsored this piece of crap why not interview some of them to provide some context? Why not have them refute the official version of events and explain how or why they dont add up? Listening to the same first person narrative directly from the same narrator for the entire duration of the film makes the presentation extremely monotonous and very boring. Different voices and perspectives lend context and credibility, which this film completely lacks.

This is really a half baked jumbled mess of poorly thought out assumptions that dont even lead anywhere. Whoever wrote this crap didnt even take the time to offer plausible alternative narratives or even think through any possible alternate theories. its just a very lazy and poorly executed presentation, from a premise that is actually quite rich with potential.

The only takeaway from this is that there was bureaucratic entanglements, miscommunications and incompetence that paralyzed any timely air response, and that there were training drills going on that day which took up a lot of our nations fighter pilots so they couldnt respond. Incompetence and bureaucracy is something most Americans can understand and relate to, and if anything this film just gives credence to the official version of events. Incompetence and negligence is bad, but is much more acceptable than devious malicious intent or complicity.

The only truly fascinating piece of information in this whole doc is the two sentence discussion of the declassification of operation northwoods which was a 1960's plan that explored the possibility of switching commercial planes with drones and shooting those down and blaming the attack on Cuba to justify an invasion, which we know never took place. But again instead of putting this in its proper context, they just sloppily throw this information at the viewer without explaining the implications of the government having such a plan in place 40 years prior to 9/11.

This documentary is so poorly done, its almost as if it was created with the sole purpose of discrediting 9/11 truthers. If this is the best "pilots for 9/11 truth" can do, and this is the best alternative narrative that so-called avition specialists can come up with, I think the casual viewer, and even other "truthers" will be more inclined to believe the official story after watching this piece of garbage.

Confused and confusing, half-baked in a crockpot, this bit of futz seems designed with dollars in mind: what new Truth About 9/11 can we invent to get some attention?

I expected a real documentary about the military response to the 9/11 attacks. Instead, I sat through forty minutes of disjointed conjecture following meaningless blips on alleged radar screens. Whose footage was this? Most of the time, there was no identification of the dots and dashes moving around--just the ooooWEEEEoooo voice-over, suggesting horrible wrongdoing when nothing was apparent. Lingo and acronyms were tossed out without explanation; lots of maps were shown, with impossible-to-follow narration veering all over the place. Then came ominous music and reference to the infamous Operation Northwoods (which, incidentally, never became a mission). All meant to suggest (but remember, no theories are being offered)...what?

In mid-air, passenger flights were "switched" with "drone planes"? Which were then aimed at the four 9/11 crash sites, killing thousands, with NO military brass aware that it was happening? All arranged by who, then? Dick Cheney, alone in his room? Cheney and Bush? Cheney and Bush and the Dark Lords of the Underworld? For what reason? So we could justify attacking our Great Enemy...Afghanistan? Or was it Iraq--"for oil"? (It's always "for oil"; we attacked, so where's all the oil?)

After all the switching, deliberate deaths, and potential destruction of the government's own military hub...where did the real planes land? Was everyone on them killed to shut them up? What about the dozens of phone calls from the planes' crew and passengers, describing every minute of their ordeal? Were they just fakes, the grieving loved ones just making it all up? (Oh, wait...they're all in on it...) Where are the hijackers? If they weren't really the hijackers, why aren't they out waving and saying, "See? We're alive! Your government lies!" Where...Oh, why bother?

As usual, the "filmmakers" (term used loosely) just throw a bunch of balls in the air and don't bother catching any of them; questions abound, with no plausible answers given. A subtitle suggestion for all these visual screeds: Sometimes A Vague Notion.

Add this one to the long list of 9/11 Conspiracy Industry self-promos. Then skip it.

fibbin' ol' scatvette! Whinin' and hammerin' away at your keyboard, hundres of posts, never discussing the documentaries directly, and using propaganda techniques like name-calling and reiterating the same sweeping generalizations. Whatcha doin' on this website, scatvette?

For some reason I am getting email notifications for every comment posted on this page. The problem is that I did not subscribe to this page.

I thought maybe I somehow got subscribed so I went to the bottom of the page and clicked subscribe. Hoping it would unsubscribe me, but the window that popped up was for me to subscribe not unsubscribe. I do not want to block TDF or mark it as spam on my email.

Any ideas on how I can fix this would be welcome. Or I could do what I usually do, nothing. Often when I have a problem of some sort (especially a computer problem) I ignore it and hope it goes away. Lol it sometimes even works.

well 911 was bad but i was born in new York i guess that i was lucky but 911 was the worst thing that tourists could have done what do you think ??????????? but i can not believe that tourists would do that unless they were evil please if the people that did this are getting filthy rich then i want to ask them was it worth it. it is you no that it was not weapons but if any one of you did not like this then tell me nbut was it worth it?

i have three people on top of me by satellite technology. they don't listen to principles, because , one, they are in too much trouble to listen. principles are what we live by. one people who are on a passenger jet are in the driver's seat, like mohommad atta. he is the one who prays while he sits in the plane. his hands are at rest. next is the other passengers who want things like drinks. now the flight attendants who are busy are next with things to do, and are more busy than the passengers. and the pilots are the least important in principle because they have there hands on the controls of the airplane. on top of the pilots are he air traffic controllers, who oversee the plane. and the people behind the satellite systems in orbit are at the top of the ladder, and are the least important of all. these principles cannot be changed by anybody. you cannot make mohommad look like a hijacker, before you blame the pilots. you cannot blame the pilots before you blame the air traffic controllers. and you cannot blame the air traffic controllers before you blame the satellite systems people. now after you have the principles, you can go after specifics. who was in control of the different systems. thank you

can anyone remember that mexican guy that was working as a cleaner or something that he and some witnesses heard explosions coming from the basement? i apologise about the lack of information but I just can't bloody remember his name,

anyway as far as i'm aware he was working the morning of the day, when the planes hit, shorty after he heard explosions from the basement, also

afew weeks prior the incident, when he was doing his cleaning or whatever, on the 50 something floor he said was not avalible to anyone, he heard nosies coming from there when people had left, he also noticed "out of place people coming in and out" i.e not your usual person who comes in the the WTC, this guy was offered alot of things by the goverment to keep things quite but turn't it down as he wanted to get the "truth out"

again sorry about the lack of his name, i will find it, anyone remember or come across this?

didn't watch this docu (have watched enough) but if you did not do it already watch the interview with Dimitri Khalezov. He claims the Russians have known since the 80-ties that when the twin Towers were built they had nukes planted around 77m below the towers. It sounds rediculous but you need to listen to the whole video. If you watch what happens to the towers it makes sense. He claims that America was a victim of an assault and that they decided to blow up the towers to avoid an even worse outcome. This I do not believe myself. But I am pretty sure that the towers have been blown up by nukes planted around 80m below the towers. And if they allow me I can prove it with seismology.

The comment about what will happen once it is proven that 911 is an inside job? I am afraid that human kind is just hopeless. You have a lot of hardworking people who have accomplished the most amazing things. But then there are the power hungry who are in control and they are always corrupt, always want more and destroy everything. This will continue unless humankind gets a mutation.

Haha yea cause a Geiger counter could never detect radiation after a nuclear blast... in Manhattan.

emp12345 you are the type that make conspiracy theorists look bad. Most conspiracy theorists don't believe official stories because they are logical and want to do research before coming to a conclusion.

Buy a Geiger counter on eBay for $20, go to ground zero, and take a reading. Any radiation?

Teddy Mcd
- 09/16/2012 at 17:49

Okay let me ask a question.

preamble - It is somewhere in the near future (two-three years) and a 9/11 investigation with the authority of law, the power to convict has been completed and the ruling is that it was an inside job. It was an inside job orchestrated by the government: non elected officials, congressmen, senators and the executive branch (including the president). Those found guilty (pick a number and make it high) of treason and murder are sentenced to death and duly executed.

? What then - what of the world - USA - democracy - religion (in a way) - the military - the common man and woman, and anything you want might want to add.

If we assume the "inside job" allegation to be true (a large assumption at this time), then your scenario outcome you describe presupposes a realm of amazing and positive developments that must have already occured to arrive at your scenario in 2 to 3 years, namely; The American population has made huge strides in Critical Independent Thinking. They have superseded the pernicious secrecy of the U.S. agencies from the CIA, military branches to the Executive advisories. A huge number of Americans must have actively questioned "official" proclamations, the mainstream media, corporate/government mouthpieces, blind allegiances to authority---they have demanded access to the processes of justice and taken an active heroic role in defending the innocent and promoting peaceful interaction to bring about a better world---a world of lesser violation and greater peace among humans. You ask "what of the world..." in the sense "what is to become of..." but were the scenario to come about as you describe, an amazing transformation has already happened, namely; millions of Americans have answered the calling described by JFK that we "do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just", and they have responded uncompromisingly to the calling.

Peter Wilson
- 09/16/2012 at 16:55

I like the comments where, if you are skeptical of the official conspiracy theory, you are called a "twoofer" which I assume is a funny alteration of the intended term---truther---because, really, truther somehow does not come off as all that disparaging. If you are not a "truther" what are you---a "lie-er"?

If drones, not American Airlines passenger planes, crashed into the World Trade Centre towers and/or the Pentagon, what happened to the American Airlines planes that did take off and the passengers on them? The passengers didn't live to come home, and if they weren't on the planes that caused the explosions, what happened to them?

Would so love to see this nitemare exposed for what it is.Obviously fighters who hear about first plane crash in wtc,are anxious to get to the area especially when 4 are confirmed hijackers.In all probability those who were in contact with the military would have given coordinates before the transponder was turned of and it does not take a moron to realise the fighters would have definately crossed paths with their superior power/.I am an Engineer and those two towers should have toppled over on their side destroying a minimum of four blocks.These are not coincidence,What can we do about it,Kinda wish something but fact is if the truth were really exposed the entire planet would become one giant that will place America as the most evil of all time.Also the two wars would have been based on this as well as womd The world will keep going on and maybe if their is another disaster such as the one on this video,I would suspect that the people would be less forgiving and base another attack because of the wars America went to.What a sad way for people regardless of religion or belief to kill just to start a war and clearly the leaders have much to hide but the slightest leak would mean certain death bye their own government and why?Cause their should never be a live witness.Truly the truth has been told here and our own people in high places are willing to murder their own and for what.4 more years.Very sick people who started this very sick yet their gruesome fate is after their life is complete and buried.

As an air traffic controller, there were few things I could quibble with in this video, but there were a couple:

The summary claims that this video is not suggesting any theories, but the tone of the narrator makes it clear that every unfortunate circumstance or communication error made on 9/11 must have been planned. This isn't a reasonable response made by objective parties.

The controller who gave an inaccurate positioning of AAL11 northeast of DC could very well have been given information about a primary target and in the chaos of the day, assumed this target was one of the hijacked aircraft. It's happened all the time at work where we are looking for a lost private aircraft, and we see several primary targets, and guess wrong about who is who, based on where we expect our lost aircraft to be. Usually, these mistakes are kept in our heads, and we withhold presenting our assumptions to other controllers until we know for sure...but in a climate where you just saw an aircraft hit the WTC, I'm sure many people would be much more likely to offer their unsubstantiated opinions to other facilities in order to prevent another crash.

My opinion, as a certified engineer, is not unsubstantiated. The laws of physics and many other laws come into play. I do not play word games or talk out my a**hole to hear myself talk. I know the business of constructing buildings, using certified building code, fire protection and engineering concepts. 3 decades plus of it. I know jack about aircraft and traffic control, but sure do know implosions when I see them. Enough said.

Ajene Farrar
- 09/16/2012 at 07:51

uhhh...am I missing something? Why is this addressed to me?

Ajene Farrar
- 09/16/2012 at 07:57

Ah, it appears you posted the video? Not sure. But your response has not responded to anything in my post. When a video claims objectivity and purports to merely examine the facts, and then jumps to assumptions of scripted, malevolent intent for every miscommunication or misfortune, it loses its gold star for objectivity (and, for many, it loses credibility). Whether you have other reasons for your cynicism or not, the facts laid out in this video do not back up these assumptions. It was an interesting watch and I quite enjoyed it, but it seems to want to be an expose when it has no smoking gun.

slpsa
- 09/16/2012 at 15:44

As I said, this video is not my expertise. I did not put it up either. My knowledge lies in engineering, construction, fire code. I could not tell you if this has a smoking gun in it, I know nothing about air traffic control. I only know buildings and know when someone has blown them up.

Ajene Farrar
- 03/24/2013 at 20:23

I'm actually responding to the video. I wish someone [anyone] would do the same.

Wendy Collins
- 09/15/2012 at 03:37

Could have been put together better. arrows to show the aircraft they're talking about ext.

It is really scary to know the gov't could be apart of such a mass massacre. It is also shocking that Bin Laden was a "Suspect," yet they went and killed him. lol I know all of this was to turn america against Muslims and to give the US gov't a nice excuse of why they're constantly in the Middle East. I do not feel safe living in a world like this. The Gov't is evil.

In regards to professional's of all stripes questioning 9/11, I am one of them. I cannot erase 3 decades of knowledge in building construction, design, and fire code. To call all all of us conspiracy theorists is preposterous. I can no more expunge the knowledge from my brain than anyone can shut their own brains off. The three buildings in question, cannot, did not, and will never again, fall in such a way, without the aid of explosives. The basics of physics and building construction cannot be changed for one day, no matter who is saying they did. I have said this 1000 times, and will never change my mind. Dealing with non professional's, who have no knowledge of such topics was old a long time ago, but there are always a few people, who understand the language engineers speak, and they know, deep down, those buildings were blown up. Any other view is not possible for anyone who is involved with any facet of engineering. Buildings cannot fall like that, without using cutter charges or explosives. There is no debate in that. Only fact. Ignorance of that uncomfortable fact is done at your own risk. Have a nice day, everyone. I can leave it at that.

slpsa, thanks and good post... I am not an engineer but the whole collapse of WTC7 has stunk to high heaven, and it is rarely if ever mentioned and only seen on YouTUbe. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 were always too freakishly fast for my tastes, but I am not a construction/building/architectual engineer.

slpsa
- 09/16/2012 at 15:35

The basic problem with the official story of these collapses, is that in order to achieve free fall speeds, which all three did, all the material underneath must be removed. That is a physics problem, and no matter who says what, the laws cannot be changed. This is the sticking point for engineers and architects, and many other experts.

We all can at least agree that whether this was an extremely elaborately planned govt cover up or not that the end result was that nothing was gained and trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost (I'm including the loss of life of Afghan and Iraqi nationals here... because I'm pretty sure that they're human beings with family, friends, and children as well).

What do you mean nothing was gained? Bush had all kinds of things passed into law that never would have, companies like the Carlyle Group who Bush's father works for made billions. The U.S. controls the oil and they installed a puppet government in Iraq.

dan summers
- 09/15/2012 at 04:58

Nothing was gained? The twin towers were insured for billions and the USA declared war on terror and us as citizens gave up more of our freedom and rights after this terrible act. So yeah id say there was alot to gain from this.

xxconspiracyxx
- 09/14/2012 at 01:59

It's all about how Israel control the american politics and that Israel feel threaten by the middle east, everyone should know that of power of the Israel lobby, look it up, Jewish control just about everything in america and have fingers in just about every pie, look at the most powerful families in the world i.e rothschilds,

This whole 9/11 stuff is just another excuse for the Israel/Americans to get there hands and military bases all over the world infecting middle eastern cultures with more global company shite, and the only reason America is pissed with north korea is that they for once can't get into a country and infect it with the poison, war crimes that fills the world today.

This film shows there were too many strange coincidences on the 11th of September 2001 for something dodgy not to be transpiring. Well worth watching although quite difficult to follow at times. Thanks

The whole official explanation of 9/11 is absurd. Voltaire wrote "if you can make people believe in absurdities you can make them commit atrocities". Numbers don't lie. They say one thing the numbers say another. it's a sad fact that all those scientists in the world that have gone along with the official explanation should die of shame.

If it was a conspiracy America needs to take a hard look at itself but then if it wasn't a conspiracy and the defense was just a complete mickey mouse operation America needs to take a hard look at itself.

This film even shows that there was a lot of confusion that day. A hijacking is not an everyday occurrence in the United States. Four hijackings in one morning is off the charts. Confusion would have to be expected.

Even if fighter jets had intercepted the first plane, they would not have shot it down. They would have accompanied it till it landed and may have realized too late what its intentions were. They would have been reluctant to shoot down a plane over a metropolitan area.

Ajene Farrar
- 03/24/2013 at 20:32

Confusion, yes, but complete ineptitude? Not quite. People in charge of handling emergency situations (like air traffic controllers, like the military, etc.) are trained to deal with the "unusual." That's why we get paid. Whether or not there was deliberate malfeasance on the part of any American citizen, the government should be explaining how so many people could be so poorly prepared for jobs, when they'd been warned repeatedly that a circumstance like 9/11 could one day happen.

From the video, it does not appear that our air traffic system failed us. How could the military do so much worse?

brianrose87
- 09/13/2012 at 03:04

So lets say that 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy. Lets say that the official story is broadly true. The end result was one of the greatest misinvestments of a nations resources in history.

Lets say that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Lets say that the government pre-planned the attacks, and therefore pre-planned the ensuing military reaction. The end result is one of the greatest misinvestments of a nations resources in history.

Heres the thing. If 9/11 was an elaborately planned false flag event (that killed over 3,000 of its own innocent civilians), then it should also have an equally elaborately planned reaction. If the entire event was staged why would they plant SAUDI ARABIAN IDs for the terrorists if your largest Muslim ally (to this day) is Saudi Arabia.

I've got a better idea. If you want to kill 3,000 of your own citizens to invade Iraq, then plant IRAQI IDs in the wreckage.

You seriously need to do further research before posting such obliviously ignorant rhetoric. They invaded Afghanistan to go after Al Queida. Iraq was invaded because of 'weapons of mass destruction', then to 'oust Saddam Hussein', then to 'bring Democracy to the Middle East', then....and so on, and so on. "9/11: Explosive Evidence- Experts Speak Out" is an excellent film on why a new investigation should occur. Do yourself a favor and look at the scientific approach and not rely on an emotional reaction for the sake of blind faith.

brianrose87
- 09/13/2012 at 04:30

My brevity wasn't for lack of knowledge. My assumption was that everyone knows that 3 months after 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan because Bin Laden and his training camps were located there. We then, in March 2003, invaded Iraq on dubious claims.

My point was that the U.S. govt wouldn't murder 3,000 of its own citizens to invade Afghanistan. Afghanistan had some quirks. The year before we invaded (and 9/11 happened) the Taliban destroyed the opium crop (Afghanistan was.... and thanks to us, is again, the largest producer of heroine in the world); on top of that, the building of a natural gas pipeline that the U.S. was very much hoping for was cancelled in 1998, again by the Taliban. Considering the magnitude of the attack and comparing it to the possible rewards (the pipeline TO THIS DAY has not been built, although in 2002 the U.S. tried to get talks started again), its obvious Afghanistan wasn't the ultimate goal.

USING LOGIC I therefore assume that Afghanistan wasn't the ultimate goal, and that Iraq was. Why do I assume that? Because Iraq has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world and sits literally in the exact middle of the Middle East. Iraq has tremendous potential for increased oil production due to its vast reserves and underproduction in the past, and it also borders a number of strategic countries. Iraq was, and is, basically a gold mine in terms of geopolitical strategy.

Which brings me back to my point. If Afghanistan was merely a diversion, and Iraq was the ultimate prize, then why not craft some bullsh*^ Iraqi IDs, instead of Saudi IDs. If they (the govt) can plan, and get away with, 9/11 then why can't they plant a connection to Iraq? IT DOESN'T ADD UP.

The audacity and loss of life caused by 9/11 would require an equally large motive. That motive could not be Afghanistan because there's simply nothing worth the sacrifice in Afghanistan. When solving a crime detectives search for a motive of equal value to the crime committed; Afghanistan doesn't provide that.

THEREFORE, if 9/11 is a govt conspiracy it must have ultimately been about Iraq due to Iraq's oil reserves (our civilization runs on oil... if you don't believe me then remember your keyboard, mouse, and monitor are made of oil. 100% of air transport runs on oil, 99% of sea transport, and 95% of land transport run on oil. The paint on your wall is oil, as is your toothpaste, toothbrush, windshield, pharmaceuticals, PETROchemicals [pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides], nylon, polyester, etc.). Our civilization is literally built on oil, so it would make sense that those in power would hope to secure the 3rd largest reserve in the world, which is conveniently placed in the most oil rich region of the world. Try flying an F-22 without oil... or trying your car, a 787, or Cruise Ship without oil.

The problem is that if Iraq had been the ultimate goal, then 9/11 was a terrible, terrible way of getting to that goal. Saddam Hussein had zero affiliation with Al Qaeda (Saddam was a Sunni; Al Qaeda is Shiite... Most conflict in the Middle East stems from differences in these two sects of Islam). If you want a good excuse to invade Iraq, then don't blame 9/11 on a bunch of Saudi nationals who were Shiites.

batvette
- 09/13/2012 at 07:37

I agree with what you say and I'll help you be even more right by pointing out something you're kind of wrong about, or at least aren't noting... since the invasion of Iraq, the bulk of the oil contracts have been awarded to French, Russian and Chinese oil companies! If it had anything to do with seizing Iraq's oil for ourselves, well we didn't follow up and get the payday.
(we invaded Iraq for a number of reasons revolving around the continuing threat Saddam posed to our allies, his neighbors- and the three countries above could not be counted on to help us stop him, but were poised to help rearm him when sanctions ended)
Good post though.

brianrose87
- 09/13/2012 at 07:53

Thank you for the elaboration betvette. I neglected to mention reasons for why we ACTUALLY invaded Iraq because I was focusing on why the bulls*@^ reasons don't add up.

Anyone who wants legitimate reasons for why the U.S. invaded Iraq need look no further than the Project for a New American Century and a paper written in September 2000. That think tank was headed by William Kristol, Ronald Kagan, Donald Rumsefeld and Paul Wolfowitz; a whose who of the Bush Administration.

9 days after 9/11/01 PNAC sent a letter stating "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." So a think-tank, created in the 1990s by Bush's future administration, told Bush 8 days after 9/11 that Iraq should be invaded REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. This is where the conspiracy theorists and I get along... How does and did the media ignore this?

Jack1952
- 09/13/2012 at 12:39

The American government had issues with Iraq and specifically Saddam, since the Gulf War. The desire to see Saddam ousted does not link them with the events of 9/11. There are many who wanted him gone that would never consider an action of this sort. From my own standpoint, I wanted Saddam gone but was totally against the invasion and still am. You have to show the actual planning and implementation of the government on 9/11 with hard physical evidence. Dubious cause and effect scenarios is not evidence.

spinflux
- 09/14/2012 at 13:34

brianrose speaks the truth. PNAC was our foreign policy for eight years and Dubya was the perfect puppet for the think tank to manipulate. His father believed the goals were too extreme eight years prior, and so he did not sign it. But Jeb Bush did, as well as Dick Cheney.

Google PNAC and read its mission statement and note the people who signed it. It's not like a secret any longer. Half of them ended up in Dubya's administration.

They even speak of "a new Pearl Harbor" to kick off their plan for America's global dominance through perpetual war, with plans to invade Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and finally "Egypt as the prize". 9-11 was that new Pearl Harbor. How very...convenient for them.

markymark715
- 09/14/2012 at 14:58

That PNAC is a very scary group indeed, their mission statement is for the U.S. to control the planet.

Jack1952
- 09/13/2012 at 12:56

All that trouble to get Iraqi oil and yet Canada is and has been the largest exporter of oil to the United States. They don't need or use the oil that Iraq has been pumping out of the ground. If you go through all the trouble to get the oil, at least use it. Its like killing my neighbour so I can have his wife and then rejecting her for someone else. It makes no sense.

Bill
- 09/13/2012 at 17:28

I have always thought the Iraqi war was not so much to get their oil but to replace the position that we will lose when the Saudi's overthrow the the royal family and run us out of their country. The only thing controlling the Saudi people is the might of the family's private army. It's just a matter of time.

Jack1952
- 09/13/2012 at 18:04

An interesting thought. I shudder to think what would happen to the people of Saudi Arabia if there is a revolution. The royal family is bad enough but Arabia is so taken with fundamentalist Islam and their special place in Allah's world that I fear an even worse form of totalitarianism. Many Muslims have accused the royal family of being to westernized. This, in a country where strict adherence to the Koran is insisted upon.

I was against the invasion of Iraq and I would like to see the United States start to cut back on its military presence around the world. Everyone is turning against them because of it and it is to the detriment of not only the United States but to global peace. Having said this, I still do not believe the American government was responsible for the hijackings. There are a lot of people around the world who hate the United States...maybe even enough to attack them. After reading some of the angry comments against the United States online, including some which calls for armed insurrection, I do not doubt that some on would actually carry it out.

CapnCanard
- 09/16/2012 at 04:01

Jack1952, sorry to say this but I believe that we can look forward to more military intervention in Middle East. Expect some fireworks in Iran soon...Oct or possibly Nov, but I hope to hell not, but my gut tells me this is what the Zionists are planning. After all the USSR isn't there to stop Israel and they only need to encourage crazy American Fundamentalist Christians to encourage the USA to help poor little Israel in their Holy War. If it happens, I predict that it will not end well for either the USA or Israel. I sure as hell hope I am wrong.

slpsa
- 09/16/2012 at 15:41

I disagree on the point it will not end well. The arsenal and power of the USA dwarfs all others. They can take Iran apart from the sky, without ever having to set foot on its soil. They are not going to invade, they will take apart their nuke program and bomb everything back to the stone age. There is nothing Iran can do about it, just like Iraq could not. All the advances they claim to have made will matter very little, they do not have what it takes to defeat stealth technology nor can Iran match in the air or the ground. Russia and China will not fight the USA or its allies over this situation. They may yell and scream a bit, but go to a WW3 scenario over it? I cannot see that happening. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

WTC7
- 09/13/2012 at 21:38

It does make sense if you see it from a different perspective. It's not about getting oil, it's about controlling its price and unhindered (or hindered when it suites) flow of it from the producing countries to users. Whoever controls it can decide who gets oil and who doesn't.

Ajene Farrar
- 03/24/2013 at 20:28

Not supporting or denying any theory here, but honestly, the oil in Iraq is most useful for multinational corporations, not the US as a nation. It would be inaccurate to assume that because American citizens may not directly be reaping the rewards of Iraqi oil, that there is not an elite group of Americans enjoying the spoils of war.

Jack1952
- 03/24/2013 at 20:45

I'm sure there are those reaping the rewards from the Iraqi war. That doesn't prove that the American government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Follow the money can be useful in an investigation but it doesn't always provide all the answers. Muslim fundamentalists have their own reason for doing the things they do. It isn't always all about money, is my point. Pure hatred can and is a strong motivator for some as well as religious conviction.

Robert Elliot
- 09/13/2012 at 03:58

You forget that their boogeyman Osama, plotting 9/11 from his cave, is the lynchpin of the government's fairy tale, hence the fake Saudi Arabian terrorist IDs (several of whom have since been located alive and well, by the way).

Jack1952
- 09/13/2012 at 13:04

Osama was not living is a cave until after the invasion. He lived, quite comfortably, in a compound where Muslim fundamentalist types could get military training. That is fact.

Those terrorist that some claim to be alive is a myth. There were those found who had the same name as the terrorists but were not the same person. I know two individuals named Ronald Macdonald. It doesn't mean that they are the hamburger clowns. Show me one that is alive and I might believe it. Don't just say it...prove it.

Peter Wilson
- 09/13/2012 at 11:57

That is a good question

Senad Gani?
- 09/13/2012 at 02:04

When I had my first chance to form my own opinion first thing that came to me is maybe its not all other sides fault. Critical thinking is what I have discovered. I come from Bosnia, suffered war for 4 years, planes, bomb shelling, some other people suffered sniper fire, mortars etc and it was easy to be bias. In my pursuit for truth I stumbled upon a lot of mess. Lie upon lie, desinformations for the masses everything was staged to make me hate, not a lot of room for asking questions. Now I am 25 and for 7 years of searching I am so sure that there is a plan for all things that happened and for what you should know is whenever you question government it is the right thing to do, hate is not knowing, questioning is the path to truth. Do it as often you can, we are all the same, in the same bullshit.

I sincerely admire your attitude after all that you have been through. It takes an exceptional human being to do that. Apart from that, I absolutely agree with your stance towards the institution of government - any government.

Nigel Sinnott
- 09/13/2012 at 01:33

I would like to fly a 747 into the heads of the people that made this doc!

I saw an interesting video, it claimed that the CIA realized shortly after their inception that they needed to create this counter-culture of conspiracy theories, supposedly by leaking faked documents into the right hands, they could cause so much confusion in the "conspiracy" genre, that people would just give up and assume that everything is bullshit. I kinda think it's working, if it's true, that is.

When the Towers disintergrated, leaving no trace of the aircraft that alledgedly caused them to turn to dust, by some miracle a passport survived belonging to one of the hijackers. That was lucky. Oh...and they found a Timemex watch which was still ticking.

Jack1952
- 09/13/2012 at 12:28

They didn't need that passport to identify the hijackers. Their identity was known from the passenger's manifest that is required by law on all commercial flights. If anything, the finding of the passport leaves them open to ridicule...ridicule like your comment. Things happen that seem to have no logical explanation. It isn't evidence of wrong doing when something of this nature happens. It is evidence when it can be proven that it was planted. It is not evidence to say "Come on. You actually believe that a passport could survive?". True evidence proves just how that passport came to be found after the incident. Until then it is an anomaly. An anomaly may be the impetus for an investigation but is not the end result of that investigation. This is a part of critical thinking that many find hard to understand.

Peter Wilson
- 09/12/2012 at 21:17

Yes, pilots, architects, and engineers; what could such people know about idiosyncracies concerning air traffic communications, flight plans, aircraft stability factors, building integrity and collapses etc.?!! (irony alert for those who missed it) What is odd to me is the lack of discussion on this point: As a flight attendant, I received annual training which included security updates. For the couple years leading up to 9/11 we were informed that the #1 most likely threat of terrorism was that Osama Bin Laden (yes he was specifically named) would organize the hijacking of commercial aircraft which would be guided like missiles into vital U.S. structures. My colleagues and I wondered between us "why do they not change the cockpit doors, because anyone can simply kick these ones open?" For the cost of one first class ticket per plane, each plane could have had a much more secure door installed. Skip the "hindsight is 100%" nonsense; that was the first insight that came to mind upon being informed that our government deemed such a scenario as the most likely threat---well before 9/11 actually happened.

Installing different doors in every airplane in existence would only have been one of literally thousands of minor to major changes that would be needed to fully prevent a hypothetical attack that had never happened. In general, corporations will avoid spending ANY money on anything that doesn't increase profits. If the potential is there for increased regulations that would require significant expense, then most corporations find lobbying against said regulations to be more profitable than actually complying.

The cost of fully protecting the industry from a high risk, low probability event like 9/11 would have been enormous. Corporations would rather ignore and deter any attempt at making them properly protect themselves.

If a corporations can spend $1 milion lobbying and save $100 million as a result, then lobbying just saved them $99 million... this is why there are over 25 lobbyists per congressman on Capital Hill... Think about that 25 lobbyists for every one congressman. That says a lot.

Peter Wilson
- 09/16/2012 at 04:12

Yes, the beauty of establishing "terrorism" as "our war" is that no matter how many laws Congress may pass, no matter how totalitarian the measures, no matter how many countries are occupied and brought under U.S. control, "terrorist" incidences can still occur. Any and all measures can be "justified" with no end in sight! However; it is not MY opinion---it was the statement within FAA mandated training programs to pilots and flight attendants that the most likely terrorist action at that time (2000 and 2001) will involve commandeering commercial aircraft into vital American targets. Of "thousands of minor to major changes" to be considered, it was evident to us beverage servers of the skies that, should terrorists manage to board commercial aircraft, the flimsy cockpit doors would be their ticket to suicide fame. I won't challenge you to come up with thousands of changes, but how about 10 or 5 or 3 that would have been as potent and cost-effective in deterring such an act should terrorists have boarded a commercial flight. I believe Eisenhower provided the FAA with the mandate to regulate aviation industry as an independent body in order to make airline safety less vulnerable to congressional lobbying monkey business. Oddly, although suicide missions were deemed the most likely threat, none of our procedures for hijacking response were altered which was certainly handy for the 9/11 culprits

batvette
- 09/12/2012 at 21:16

This is probably the most pointless and substance lacking 9/11 twoofer doc yet. 18:00 in and all they've done is question the routing and then conclude it shared similarities to Operation Northwoods? Something that never happened!
If you were to dig through all the government's files for all the contingency plans you'd find all kinds of crazy stuff.
What we're hearing unfold is some good employees trying to think on their feet but the bureaucracy is not set up for this kind of event.
Speculation and innuendo are not evidence.

As I describe in my post, this "kind of event" was exactly what government security agencies were anticipating. As for evidence, what do you call the almost non-stop presentation of audio and visual recordings of pilot/air traffic controllers/security agencies and radar displays?! Wait a minute, is your comment an example of what's referred to as trolling? Ah you got me.

Jack1952
- 09/12/2012 at 21:37

I wish people would understand the principle known as the rules of evidence. "Why did they", "How is it possible", "Never before has" are questions. It is not evidence. Until there is direct evidence pinpointing a chain of command and credible witnesses offering proof of malfeasance, they are only asking question. Confusion and coincidence are also not evidence. If that were true, then anyone could be found guilty of something.

Peter Wilson
- 09/12/2012 at 23:02

Are you talking to me? Here is what I wrote concerning evidence: "As for evidence, what do you call the almost non-stop presentation of audio and visual recordings of pilot/air traffic controllers/security agencies and radar displays?! " The rest of my post I referred to as a "point" of "discussion". Are you doing one of those straw man things? You sound like you are suggesting we use sound reason and a more scientific approach. There are two theories under discussion: 1. Bin Laden orchestrated a suicide mission and effectively defeated ALL our defense mechanisms even though the action was highly anticipated by our highest officials. 2. High level officials helped to orchestrate the events of 9/11. Both sound highly improbable, senseless and horrible. Returning to reason and a more scientific approach, skepticism calls for an open mind. How are you doing with that aspect? As with JFK, the official story got locked in startlingly fast for minds that prefer deeper inquiry into unlikely scenarios with a large list of unanswered questions.

batvette
- 09/12/2012 at 23:45

" even though the action was highly anticipated by our highest officials. "

That's your opinion. As well as asserting it should have been the only think they should be expecting.
However "high level officials" were not who we see talking on the phones and reacting to these events here. It's obvious in their voices, they had no idea what to do or what was happening.
Don't listen to common sense. Just keep telling yourself you're so much smarter than the 94% of us "sheeple" who are either part of the conspiracy or lack your courage to save the world....
And spend the rest of your life being ridiculed, marginalized, and laughed at by everyone you patronize with the assumption ignorance is enlightenment. Remember you heard it here: You will die decades from now with no new "investigation", no head of Bush on a platter, a bitter, lonely person on the fringe.
Grasping fringe is not science. Questioning hypothesis held by consensus is not science. "asking questions" and refusing answers is not science.

sean c
- 09/16/2012 at 15:23

I can't help but notice that from posting to posting your style of writing and grammar differ somewhat. Your outpourings seem to be written by a commitee armed with volumes of propaganda material designed to have the odd elements of truth woven in, trying to confuse us Thomas Paine'rs and keeping us all unhinged. Dasterdly stuff.Mirth of a Nation.

hk909
- 10/23/2012 at 17:09

Let me just point out that "Questioning hypothesis held by consensus" is PRECISELY what science is all about. Perhaps that's what you meant to say instead of "Questioning hypothesis held by consensus is not science." Generally, consensus is the last place to seek truth.

batvette
- 12/08/2012 at 23:07

For reference, this was the entire statement:

"Grasping fringe is not science. Questioning hypothesis held by consensus is not science. "asking questions" and refusing answers is not science."

Within this context the quoted statement means it's not good enough to merely question the prevailing hypothesis or disbelieve it, you have to provide an alternative hypothesis and allow it to withstand scrutiny.

"Generally, consensus is the last place to seek truth."

Ah, the philosophy of the conspiracy theorist, who loves to dwell in the loneliness of the fringe.

hk909
- 12/09/2012 at 17:17

Many alternative hypotheses have been provided to explain the various anomalies surrounding the events of 911. The problem is in allowing them to "withstand scrutiny." There can be no scrutiny of any hypothesis until there is a complete investigation of the 911 incident. There has not been such an investigation because the 911 Commission cherry-picked what it would hear and who it would allow to present evidence (such is the nature of all investigations). Now, since virtually every piece of physical evidence has been reduced to its constituent parts, there is nothing left to investigate. All that remains is verbal testimony and the various hypotheses put forth. In a word, "Science" has long ago been removed from the equation, so it's meaningless to demand proof that meets scientific criteria.

batvette
- 01/24/2013 at 14:35

" Now, since virtually every piece of physical evidence has been reduced to its constituent parts, there is nothing left to investigate."

What physical evidence would that have been? Specify what you believe there was and I'm sure they could dig it up if it existed.

"Scatvette"? I thought they had a minimum age for commenting. What are you, 8 years old?
The fact you've no more mature way to contribute to any discussion than make elementary school level insults of my person referencing feces only proves how weak your position is.
When you actually attempt to make topical points you can't refrain from cheap tactics like putting words in peoples' mouths then calling them a liar for them.
A bad joke you are.

leanmv
- 09/13/2012 at 00:17

I agreed with you Peter, don't listen to that ***** (batvette), it's just another sheep still connected to the matrix. Respect.

Dean Edgington
- 09/13/2012 at 17:01

Oh you silly, silly boy. Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

leanmv
- 09/14/2012 at 17:46

Excuse me, who is talking to you? Gran pelotudazo

Jack1952
- 09/13/2012 at 01:15

Actually, I meant to make a general comment and did not intend it to be directed specifically towards you. For that, I apologize.

Why is it that all those CTers seem to use the same jargon. Strawman, sheeple, matrix, status-quo, brain washed, wake up people, manipulated....and on and on? It is like they have share a handbook of phrases that they can use to identify one another. One thing is positive, they trust no one except those who accuse the government, the media, the military, or corporations. Then the trust is complete and unquestioning.

I have never claimed that these entities are one hundred percent correct in all they do but, they cannot be guilty of one hundred percent of everything wrong in this world. It is too simplistic an answer. When you accuse someone of malfeasance, you have to have direct evidence, not supposition and coincidence. That is how our judicial system attempts to operate in our democratic societies. There is nothing in this film that would indict anyone in the American government or military of a criminal act concerning the attacks of that day. It is comprised of generalized accusations with no specifics involved. Just who could you bring to trial with the material this film presents? Not anyone. That is the reality that all the CT types have to realize.

sean c
- 09/13/2012 at 09:21

To paraphrase Aeschylus the Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC). "The first casualty of war is truth"

He also wrote

"I never trust people's assertions, I always judge of them by their actions"

Even though we all know that the weapons of mass destruction never existed and was a blatant lie on the part of Bush and Blair Americans and Brits, in their millions still believe it was the right thing to do and ignore all the anomalies that they based their actions on.

God bless America and nobody else. Maybe Britain.

Jack1952
- 09/13/2012 at 12:16

I find one aspect of the lack of WMDs in Iraq to be a contradiction with the claims of CT supporters. The American government is accused of going to great lengths on 9/11 to cover up its part and yet doesn't even bother to plant the WMDs to bolster their claims. They don't want to be known as duplicitous on one incident but could care less if people suspect them of malfeasance in another. I don't think it would have been that difficult to plant some poison gas in Iraq to prove to the world just how dangerous Saddam was. Instead, they allow themselves to look like a bunch of liars and let everyone who hates them call them a bunch of murderers and baby killers. They just shrug their shoulders and say "oops". On 9/11 however, they go to great lengths to show how guilty Bin Laden was and continue this ruse to this day. Inconsistent, to say the least.

Dean Edgington
- 09/13/2012 at 16:59

well said

batvette
- 09/12/2012 at 23:55

You DO realize those "radar displays" are recreations and the positions they place the aircraft in are their own and based on their interpretations?

Peter Wilson
- 09/13/2012 at 12:14

Thank goodness. Aviation personnel are a lot more qualified than I am to interpret radar data! The greatest innovations in history come about from "fringe" thinking---from Euclid to Newton and Copernicus. Edison, Einstein...

batvette
- 09/16/2012 at 08:48

You're kind of dodging the point, which is that we're at the mercy of the film's producers for accuracy over what the presentation is of this recreation- and you seemed to believe that the radar screens we were seeing in the film were actually taken from some kind of footage the government was recording.
The producers have given a subjective rendering of these events based on either honest or "other" interpretations of data they collected. We don't know that the paths of these aircraft are what they are showing us they are, so the points they make in this doc may be pointless to begin with.
This may be no less a fictional account than a Hollywood movie.
I noticed these same producers have a cute little clip on youtube with them badgering an analyst from a gov't agency who couldn't discuss his report because it was for the FBI, not his own agency.
It was about the Pentagon plane, some sort of doubts about the actual flight path or something. Getting past his harassment of this analyst, what was his point? That some of the data about the plane's trajectory was in error for any possible numbers of reasons? Okay fine. The equipment is not perfect nor are the people collecting the data.
Is the point that they are claiming no plane hit the Pentagon? That's ridiculous. Just silly.
As usual, someone thinks "asking questions" is a pursuit of its own goals, or poking holes in a consensus held hypothesis replaces it with another.

slpsa
- 02/22/2015 at 14:25

Your so full of it. Always. You make me laugh. You know jack **** about engineering either. Keep on flapping.

Jack1952
- 09/13/2012 at 01:34

Operation Northwoods is like the proposal recommending killing Castro with an exploding cigar. As a matter of fact, the person who proposed Operation Northwood was relieved of his post shortly after. I wonder why?

batvette
- 09/13/2012 at 03:34

Bahhhhhhhhh!
(that's sheep talk from the matrix)
I love it when the "Bush and Cheney did it to enrich themselves waging illegal wars" faction brings up Operation Northwoods. It shows how confused their whole mind is. Though it sounds nefarious, whatever light they wish to look at it with, it would have been solely for the purpose of the national security of the country. Not for a couple guys to get rich off.
It's precedent of nothing.

sean c
- 09/13/2012 at 08:55

Isn't time you took your brain in for a service

batvette
- 09/16/2012 at 08:35

Oh, ad hominem, on the level of a ten year old even. I'm quite impressed.

Dean Edgington
- 09/13/2012 at 16:59

very twoo batvette, Ive never been convinced by the twoofers bullsh!t. I know most of them mean well but they are pretty lame.

oQ
- 09/12/2012 at 19:16

It is interesting to have a look at the website...Pilots For Truth.
The member list is composed of lunatic conspiracists?
ya, right!
People want to know. There are groups of architects and engineers who have formed and now groups of pilots. When will we have groups of politicians that do the same?
1i

And there are those who readily accept every wild accusation made. 9/11...the government, chemtrails...once again, the government, JFK... the government, Oklahoma City...the government, Virginia Tech...the government, the recent Batman shootings...the government, no cure for cancer...the government, the spread of Aids...the government...I could go on and on. It is incredible just how predictable these people are. And they call us "sheeple". You have your beliefs handed to you on a plate and don't even realize that the only real evidence you have is your own predisposition to believe any story that fits certain criteria. The problem is with these wild accusations is that when something untoward finally does happen, no one will listen. The boy who cried wolf too many times.

brianrose87
- 09/14/2012 at 07:57

Many winners of Nobel prizes in chemistry, physics, biology, etc. note that after receiving a Nobel prize people ask them questions on a large range of subjects. For instance, a chemist will be asked questions about what should be done about Darfur, or if China's economic growth can really be sustained. A genuinely knowledgeable chemist simply says "I may have an unscientific opinion, but that's not my expertise". Many Nobel prize winners express angst at the notion that knowlgeability can be universalized.

Just because a pilot is knowledgeable about flight dynamics, and certain policies that pertain SPECIFICALLY to pilots doesn't make them an expert on a broader basis. Just as a Nobel prize winning chemist cannot make an informed statement on String Theory.

I've seen a large number of docs on 9/11, and I admittedly was thoroughly convinced of the false flag perspective for some time. I now no longer hold those beliefs because it doesn't add up. Engineers have constructed computer simulations that conclude the towers (especially Tower 7) could never have failed under the assumed conditions. Other engineers have produced computer simulations that conclude, based on highly complex algorithms, that they certainly did collapse naturally.

I've known some incredibly intelligent, rational people who hold completely absurd beliefs. I know a chiropractor ( an old college friend) who finds Ancient Aliens fascinating. This is a man who graduated with a 3.87 GPA, and has more legitimate knowledge about the human body than anyone I can imagine... yet he finds Ancient Aliens fascinating.

The point is that peoples competence and intelligence are founded in the specialized subjects that they are experts in. If Einstein believed in Scientology it wouldn't make Scientology true; it would merely prove that Einsteins specialty was an entirely different subject.

I should also add that I AM CLEARLY NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS SUBJECT. I may have an informed opinion, but I am not qualified to give an absolute verdict. I'm merely discussing my personal perspective on a subject that I have no PhD in.

sean c
- 09/15/2012 at 08:42

"there are none as blind as those that refuse to see"

johnnyplant
- 09/12/2012 at 18:28

Lets face it folks, we have a GOV creating events to go to war to keep the economy going and to eventually own the Mid East, always the plan. Next will be turning our backs on Israel once Iran and Pakistan attack her. Israel no longer has a place in the new world order, they dont want Zionism in the plan. Once Iran and Pakistan attack, the rest of the middle east will back them or not, probably not, Saudia Arabia does have a place in the new order. Finally, if this fails, it will be a fake UFO invasion with our own secret machines attacking, convincing all to unite into the one world order gladly. We will be pushed into 110 underground FEMA camps for protection, never to see the light of day again. Reduce the pop to 500 million, and the 13 families win.

Damn! I watched another 911 doc, why can't I stop? Makes me feel like a crazy kid, ripping open endless packets in search of a rare pokemon card and only ever getting swapsies! I swear, this is the last one! ;)

well are still buying the official story or what .
if so i suspect you will not get clarity on this issue until they start
teaching in the universities. and for a frame of ref for your possible reply i was military crypto air to ground technician 25 years ago.

dewflirt
- 09/12/2012 at 18:31

I don't think anyone would believe the truth now. It's too late, conspiracies snowball. Look at Roswell, jfk, lady Di, global warming. Doesn't matter what anyone says, the average conspiracist is still going to think it's just more lies. :)

Ana Luz González Ruiz
- 09/12/2012 at 16:46

when are all those bastards going to stand trile they make adolf hitler look like mary poppins god bless you america you need it, cause your government
are the real terror